Even More Fallacies! | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 01. 2015
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/donateidea
Watch all 3 Fallacy videos here!
The Fallacy Fallacy: bit.ly/1wVGbGT
Moving the Goal Posts: bit.ly/1xGsr85
The Texas Sharpshooter: bit.ly/1xGkwax
Even more in the Fallacies Playlist!
bit.ly/1wpuCcU
Tweet us! bit.ly/pbsideachanneltwitter
Idea Channel Facebook! bit.ly/pbsideachannelfacebook
Talk about this episode on reddit! bit.ly/pbsideachannelreddit
Idea Channel IRC! bit.ly/pbsideachannelirc
Email us! pbsideachannel [at] gmail [dot] com
There's lots of... um... let's say "discussion" on the web, and I think we can all agree that it's not always constructive. You may have seen our Fallacies episode, in which we tried to help internet arguers make more solid, logical arguments. So to kick off the new year, we're offering a few more ideas to help you argue better on the internet in 2015! Check out our second installment of our field guide to Bad Arguments, and let us know what you think!
ASSETS
:29
• The Guide to Common Fa...
3:29
• You Are Not So Smart: ...
3:46
mikeurbonas.com/2010/12/02/slo...
5:10
tribalinsight.wordpress.com/20...
5:32
• stupid white man hit b...
------------------------------------------------------
I made a podcast!
Reasonably Sound: bit.ly/1sCn0BF
------------------------------------------------------
MUSIC:
"Europe" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Level 5" by Room for the Homeless (bit.ly/10N0Ykm)
"Bouncy Castle" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
":P" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Number Cruncher" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Little Birthday Acid" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Topskore" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Anti Vanishing Spray" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Tarty Prash" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Carry on Carillon" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Uptown Tennis Club" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Squarehead" by Roglok (www.roglok.net)
"Dream Of Autumn" by Night Shift Master
/ dj-darkmatter-
"Insert Toy For Coin" by Eatme (eatme.pro/music/)
"Dizor" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440
"Lets go back to the rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440
"Something like this" by Outsider
www.jamendo.com/en/artist/440
------------------------------------------------------
TRANSLATE THINGS @ ideachannel.subtitl.us
Hosted by Mike Rugnetta (@mikerugnetta)
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbrown.com)
Want some more Idea Channel?
YULE TUBE!
• YULE TUBE! | Idea Chan...
Coffee, Mesmerism, and Morning Routines
• Coffee, Mesmerism, and...
Is Over the Garden Wall About Having Faith?
• Is Over The Garden Wal...
How Mighty is Taylor Swift's Pen?
• How Mighty is Taylor S...
Goalpost shifting example: never enough transitional fossils for creationists.
When creationists ask for transitional fossils or animals, most of them still seem to be talking about proof of metamorphosis rather than evolution. Never mind that metamorphosis does exist in nature and helps back evolution up since the majority of the animals that do are descended from earlier species in the fossil record (jellyfish, insects, frogs, etc…), that's not how evolution works. I know, I know, Pokémon lied to me too.
And I'm sure you already knew this. I just thought I'd elaborate on what they think evolution is "like."
should have gone with this one as the example.
i always just point to fossilized poop and say "the transitional animal got eaten."
Kanelel Probably would have if creationists were rational, understanding people willing to change opinions.
All fossils are transitional fossils. There's either too much of a gap (T-Rex and a chicken), or not enough of a gap (my great great grandfather and I), or something that isn't captured in the fossil record (skin flaps and feathers), but no species are in stasis.
"The internet is one of nuances natural predators." Amazing.
didn't get it, can you please break it down.
Did he just say jife tho
+darkflames9 I actually cringed.
+anon19283746 Me too man
He does that to avoid the soft vs hard g argument, and it is spelled zhaif.
I know! They are clearly gifes.
4 years ago, and it still burns
"Please! If we have to negotiate the terms of the negotiation, we'll never get anywhere."
I, for one, will continue to call everyone "literally Hitler" until I eventually get to call literally Hitler "literally Hitler".
Next I think you need to explain to your viewers that an example argument is not an invitation for viewers to argue with you. You can see that they don't understand how everything is not an invitation to an argument.
I could probably say "I think Ketchup is a more agreeable condiment" which would somehow be construed as me invading the personal space of someone who wants to make an anti-feminism argument.
Live and let live, fools.
Ok back up one second did you really just say that anyone that likes mustard should be thrown into a concentration camp and worked to death?
Chris notaperson That does not go far enough. We shall parade the Mustard-lovers dead body in the streets for all to see that their insides are filled with ketchup, not mustard.
ketchup is my trigger, how DARE you?
Ularg
I will relish the day that this happens.
That hitler joke made me laugh so hysterically i couldn't finish reading your comment for 15 minutes, every glance just made me drop 4 tears of laughter XD
Ularg OMG DUDE WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO ME, I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING
EDIT: IM SERIOUSLY CHOKING RIGHT NOW SOMEONE HELP
EDIT 2 : Ok i've calmed down... damn, faith in humanity restored, finally some people who can joke about stuff without it getting blown up by feminists or creationists
The moments when I realize that schools are genuinely teaching students to regularly use the sharpshooter fallacy to make their essays or paragraphs seem more correct even though there is other information that could potentially weaken the argument that is being made.
No wonder the Mel-CON is no longer used for juniors and above.
But quick question, is it still morally correct for student to learn how to put together arguments by using fallacies? I mean, the arguments themselves are weak and could be taken apart easily, and I feel like teaching the generations how to play dirty isn't right...
Though I guess playing dirty isn't always dirty to those using those means.
Yay, more of these! I love these!
Here are some requests I have for fallacies that I see constantly:
*Slippery Slope: the assumption that one change will lead to other, often more extreme, changes with no evidence to back this up.
*Anecdotal: a single or small sample that is used as evidence, despite the fact that it is just as likely to be an exception rather than the rule. This one is only a fallacy when not combined with more substantial evidence, such as statistics.
*Worse Problems: also known as "Relative Privation," or "Starving Children in Africa," it is the assumption that we can ignore and dismiss an argument because there are more severe and "worse" things to worry about in the world.
*Red Herring: a type of straw man where you introduce an unrelated argument in order to distract from the current one.
*Bandwagon: also known as "Argumentum ad populum" or "appeal to the people" this is the assumption that something must be true because it is popular and many people believe it
I hope to see these in the future, so I can use them in my own debates. :D
I have a collection of all the common logical fallacies mounted on my wall in the form of a pretty poster
Can...can I have a copy?
Sterling Felker Make that two?
Count me in on some of that action too, bro.
Sterling Felker Google "fallacy" and click the first non-wikipedia link you get. They sell the posters there.
***** Thank you.
Never realized how frequently people do the goal-post shift fallacy when I'm arguing with them, until now. Now I can call them out on it :P I love these fallacy videos, by the way.
Damn, I was raised up then immediately disappointed it wasn't going to be about cereal. I've not listened to Serial so I was much more interested in Cereal.
same
May I point you towards VSauce's latest video then asking if cereal is soup.
I'm super cereal
Where is your picture from?
Please can you make more of these man? I really enjoy learning about this stuff.
Except women seem disinterested in high risk labor work in general. Even in highly progressive countries in Europe, these jobs are still largely done by men. Saying it's "male dominated" implies that women want to do the work but " the menz" just won't let them, when the reality is women have largely not expressed much interest in these jobs (I don't blame them.) both of them are incorrect and are arguing two different things. One is arguing that we care about workplace deaths more with women, even though women tend to work jobs where workplace death is in fact an odity and the other assumes that women care for working in high risk jobs in the first place
I don't think saying "male dominated" implies women want to do the work. The fact of the matter is that they are largely done and operated by males - hence, male dominated.
8jb65
Dominated as a word choice does have a certain actiony feel to it. When a structure collapses you don't see many headlines claiming that gravity dominated the building. But when one team wins a game over the other by a huge number of points you will see dominated being used. Its typical use does imply an effort put forth by the dominating party.
yeh it's a simple fact everybody knows that the genders are different when applied to the general population. Men are on average more likely to take risks which leads them to higher paying CEO positions because you can't win the game of business by playing it safe. But risk taking also leads men to be on average more likely to commit crimes and go to jail. The ignorance of saying that gender roles are a myth is that when looking at the general population patterns emerge, but also when looked at on the individual level people are completely random and can be any type of role they want. So just saying that women CAN'T do things is completely sexist and ignorant of the facts, but saying that women TEND to not do things is completely factual.
Chris notaperson That is a feel you attribute to it, not one everyone does.
8jb65
Not everyone no, but I didn't say everyone feels that way about the word just that the common understanding of the word given its historical use in practice within media and language as spoken by people.
the biggest texas sharpshooter fallacy is when creationists say the universe is finely tuned for life on earth.
haha yis
Not exactly (not that I agree with creationists). If the universe wasn't finely tuned for life on earth, wouldn't that mean that there wouldn't be life on earth?
no just means there are acceptable parameters for life to exist. It could be more habitable. less deserts and more fresh water. Less natural disasters even.
BTW the if/then question you proposed is a fallacy called a false dichotomy. If not one then the other, but it doesn't work that way in this case. There is more nuance.
Sethbeastalan or that life is very tenacious/evolution allows life to survive almost anywhere given enough time. for example we humans in our natural state(naked and shelter less) could only survive close to the equator, its thanks to our tenacity/technology that we spread out all over the globe and even into space
Sethbeastalan
Life exists on earth because life was finely tuned in the crucible of earth's environment.
Earth is the cause, life is the effect.
There are other worlds like earth, and life could've sprung up on any of them, but then... the person asking these questions would be there, not here, no?
I don't know if there's an "Official Name" for this one, but I've seen it around and I was wondering if other people have similar experiences (or if I'm nuts).
I'm going to call it the "Tumblr Fallacy" because that's where I see it the most often. It's where someone takes a position that seems to support a group that is otherwise seen as un-attackable, whether they're veterans, widows, sufferers of some sort of illness, etc, in order to defend against counter-arguments or to seem as morally righteous.
For example, occasionally people on Tumblr will grossly exaggerate how many people are afflicted by a condition that renders a new update "dangerous". When Tumblr did a large change recently they added auto-playing videos, and many posters were concerned that it would trigger epileptic episodes (instead of admitting that they just didn't like the update!).
This also shows up in politics, ultimately resulting in elections (American elections, I can't speak for other countries) in which parties try to accumulate as many of these as possible (or perhaps that's just how politics works), hoping the other side will trip up in some way like a political Trap Card ("Ha ha, Democrats, for trying to attack conservative policies you've activated my trap card, 'American Veterans'! You will seem like veteran-hating hippies for the next 2 months!").
This is a problem that civil liberties campaigners have in Europe.
In the US, freedom of speech is almost inarguable due to the constitution, but in many European countries there are laws against insulting religion and 'offensive communication'.
In the UK people have been arrested and convicted for making jokes about deaths, such as when several people died when a lorry crashed into a building in Glasgow and someone made a joke about how the lorry 'picked up the most trash it ever had' that day.
Freedom of speech campaigners often disagree with jailing people for jokes and humour like this, but have a hard time arguing for bad-taste jokes. 'Huh? So you like making fun of dead people?' is a typical response.
I think that's another example of this fallacy.
LuciferDeathbringer
Yep, that's what I had in mind (and honestly a better example than I had!).
Perhaps the fallacy needs a better name though.
LuciferDeathbringer
the idea that 'speaking ill of the dead is poor taste' is ridiculous to me. adolf hitler, andrew jackson, and oliver cromwell are all dead
It's called 'appeal to emotion'. It's basically when someone uses peoples emotions to convince people of an argument e.g "a complete ban of all porn is the only way to protect children from seeing it, you do believe we should protect children don't you?".
Wee mans wan
Ah, cool. Now that you mention it, I vaguely remember that from English class.
I think that the "moving the goalposts" fallacy does have some legitimacy in some cases because, you can say "no one wins this argument" because there isn't enough information to give a clear answer.
But that's the point, you can't give a clear answer because the question keeps changing.
If you believe that there isn't enough information to reach a clear conclusion, you can make that the point you're trying to defend, and make sure that it's clear what your position is. What you can't do is start the argument by saying that to 'win' you need to satisfy certain criteria, then when the opposition does so, you ask for further criteria, even going so far as to ask for something that is impossible to obtain.
***** Straw Mike: "I'll be worried when there is a clear difference in the climate."
Mike Mike: "There _is_ a clear difference right now." Ice cores, tree rings are used as evidence to show that the Earth hasn't been this warm for as long as humans have been around.
Straw Mike: "These are indirect measurements. You are making a leap of faith." So now Straw Mike shows he doesn't just want to see a clear difference using standard scientific measurements (which the scientific community considers acceptable), but he also wants them to be direct.
Mike Mike: "What about all of those written climate records from around the world going back 150 years?"
Straw Mike: "150 years is nothing. Show me written climate records going back 150 thousand years." Now Straw Mike doesn't just want direct measurements, but he wants them to go back further than humans have been able to make direct measurements and write them down.
If he'd been clear on his requirements from the beginning, Straw Mike's argument would not be fallacious. The problem is that every time Mike Mike makes his case by providing the evidence Straw Mike is asking for, Straw Mike says that this is still insufficient.
Bart Bols What's really difficult about climate change is that it is greatly influenced by factors outside of humanity's impacts.
I believe it is unclear as to whether or not humanity has created as large an impact as some believe, and would venture to say that nature affects it far more than humanity.
Bart Bols I never said it was a bad idea to make efforts to go "greener" and pollute less. In fact, I support that, but not necessarily for the benefits it may give to the climate. More-so to the environment within whatever place the company is operating. They will preserve resources and not destroy the local environment.
I love Idea Channel's commenters. They're all so nice and thoughtful.
holy shit the eyes on those other mikes are horrifying
i have to this as an assignment for a college course
same, i hate this class
THANK YOU. Honestly, I hate it when people just call their opponent on fallacies all day without really adding anything to the argument more than I do the use of fallacies in the first place. A lot of people seem to think they can dismiss an entire argument because there was a fallacy in one of its points.
My brother showed me this channel last week when I was sick.I may or may not have watched all your videos in a week. You're awesome! P.S My brother now refers to you as my CZcams friend :)
Here another falacy for a future video: The binary falacy. Often used as who is not with me is against me, or when zero-sum-games are started without it really being a zero-sum-game, also in pretty much every dualism views, like the sun and the moon as opposites (even though that is really just a perception thing).
That's also known as the black and white fallacy (if I understand you correctly) and it was featured in the first set of fallacies.
You are right, sorry forgot about it being already been addressed there. Has been some time and I didn't looked back into it.
Drudenfusz No problem. People can't watch, check or remember everything :)
What? People being civil on the Internet?
Drudenfusz ***** Both of these sound like a 'False Dichotomy' to me. Are these in fact separate fallacies or just alternative names for the same thing? If they are different, could you explain the difference to me?
You were in Copenhagen this New Year?! Holy shit, i saw you! I didn't think it was you, but now i know that it was!
Aww man, i should have said hello!! :(
God damnit. Straw-Mike is back and he brought an even creepier friend? Ugggh
Again, I appreciate you (all) for doing an episode on fallacies. Keep spreading the knowledge and inspiring thought.
workplace safety: 90 percent of workplace deaths are male. well we gotta look at men and women in the same conditions in the same job working the same amount of hours.
wage gap: men make more money than woman. we don't need to compare exact same job/career,credentials or hours worked just the simple fact that in aggregate men earn more money proves patriarchy.
Funny how when it's convenient you'll consider men and woman in the exact same conditions for your narrative, but the second it looks like that comparison will make the problem even slightly less dramatic it's conveniently unnecessary to take variables into account.
BTW im not even saying 90% of workplace deaths being male is a problem(other than the obvious problem that people are dying at work) it's to be expected when the most dangerous jobs(oh and funny enough also some of the most high paying jobs, wonder why that is) are dominated by men.
Except that we have examined men and women in the same jobs, credentials, and hours worked. They are consistently paid less the farther you get from able-bodied white male.
Not to mention the absolute assload of other evidence for the existence of a patriarchy.
Hen Barrison lolwhat, show me your facts
Hen Barrison Yes they are paid less, by less than 1%
This comment....so predictable...
XDinky
Without controlling for any factors, the gap sits at about 77 ish percent. when controlling for several factors like job type, experience, hours worked etc. it drops to about 98% of men's wages, if I remember correctly. Still a problem, but not what the most outspoken critics like to pretend it is. Steve Levitt discusses it in Super Freakanomics.
I do have a problem with the example of the sharp shooter. When the straw mike says his "fallacy" the refutation of it assumes his "target", which is that men are second class citizens. I would think that you can only say that he thinks men are second class citizens if he had said that, which he didn't. He did have the target be that men are not prioritized at all
Online debates have a major disadvantage when compared to those offline. They are not "live" so people can commit a number of fallacies in just one post, and so communication can quickly break down. These people, as a rule, tend to quickly resort to ad hominems and absurdities - stuff that I generally don't experience to a great degree in real life debates. The lack of live accountability and the shield of a computer screen is why people online troll and it's also why many people cannot argue properly online. And Twitter is the worst. Maybe it's about not even bothering most of the time...
'we all know that coldplay is not a black metal band but rather a pop/rock equivalent of warm flat diet cafeine-free soda' this made my day
Couldn't the Fallacy Fallacy be flipped as a form of a straw-man? Like every time you point out a logical fallacy and elaborate on how the reasoning fails, the opponent just dismisses it because of the fallacy fallacy, and so rejects any opportunity to change their position.
you have to use fallacies right, don't go "you used a fallacy you're wrong" go, "that argument point contained a fallacy and that point is invalid". the way i see it is only when all points are laid out is there a conclusion, the only way they can all be laid out is if the invalid reasons are discarded for better arguments or none at all if the argument just so happened to stand on fallacy.
The way I go about it, whenever someone uses a fallacy, I say "You used [X] fallacy, which does nothing to prove/disprove your position. Please try again to convince me. If you can construct an argument without a fallacy, I will seriously consider your point"
Then that would be a fallacy fallacy on your opponent's call of the fallacy fallacy making it a fallacy fallacy fallacy and theorically if that was misused that would be a fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy and.... internet arguments are going to get really stupid soon aren't they?
A common metaphor for quality arguments used in intro philosophy classes is the Jenga Tower: you can remove some blocks from the tower without it falling, BUT remove the key blocks (or just a sufficient number of minor blocks) and the tower crumbles.
This said, there is no axiom that declares which points/blocks are essential to the strength of the argument/tower.
Which is, as Mike implied, why good faith is a vital part of productive arguing. (gets soapbox) in order to rigorously treat arguing like a competition (ie line by line deconstruction of arguments), people should be willing to deflate their arguments into proofs a la spinoza. Pointing out fallacies may be correct, but it is often not helpful.
if Alex commits a fallacy and his opponent Bob accuse fallacy accordingly, then Alex can only rightfully counter-accuses Bob fallacy-fallacy when the original (Bob's) accusation was *misused*
Case one
If Bob accuses, and moves on, such that the dialectic could continue, then there is no fallacy fallacy here
,and if Alex were to falsely accuse Bob of fallacy-fallacy, in this case Alex just committed the Strawman fallacy.
Bob counter-counteraccuses Alex of Strawman fallacy, negating Alex's false fallacy-fallacy accusation.
The dialectic continues
Case two
If however, Bob accuses, and then promptly concludes that "He (Bob) wins" _directly because_ of the correct original accusation, seeking to halt the dialectic,
then Alex can rightly counter-accuse fallacy-fallacy...
=Case two-A
After case 2, Bob now faces a correct fallacy-fallacy counter-accusation, Bob can now falsely _counter_-counter-accuse Alex something in a vain attempt to negate the correct fallacy-fallacy counter-accusation
Alex can now easily negate the false counter-counter-accusation
The dialectic continues
=Case two-B *(B is for best case scenario!)*
Alternatively. after case 2 Bob can concede that he(Bob) committed a fallacy-fallacy, Alex in turn concedes that he(Alex) committed the original fallacy Alex and Bob both saved each other time by skipping case two-A.
The dialectic continues
But actually we do have a way to measure prehistoric climate patterns because of geology and polar ice testing :p
yeah, but he's talking about from when they started testing for climate change, not for how far they can measure it. Same type of thought process that goes into "The bible is 2000 years old, therefore it is right"; "for someone questioning the validity of scientific test held to a high standard of accuracy you seem to be ignoring the potential for inaccuracy for 2000 years ago. (not bible bashing, just thinking of a common example)
We don't know for certain about prehistoric climate. People are making assumptions about chemicals and climate. They are not finding old thermometers. Another reason we don't know about those older weather conditions is that layers aren't representative of years or eons.
"The internet is one of nuances' MANY natural predators." - and there's my new signature-quote.
Thanks for the update on the upcoming shows,id have been left out but since I know ahead of time Ill work them into my free time. Keep it up,awesome channel.
I think I get hit with more Goal Post fallacies than anything else I see. Plenty of Straw Men though. Would be an interesting statistic if I started keeping tally.
Yup
I think ad hominem is the most common. :'(
In regards to the "Moving the Goal Post" fallacy, and at the risk of painting myself as a frequent user of it, I'm reminded of one of the reasons I can't stand it when people hate on English voice work versus Japanese voice work. As an anime fan, this is a very common complaint I hear from other anime fans. They insist that ALL English voice work is terrible and that, not only is Japanese voice work better, but that it is objectively better, and in some cases, the best language for acting. People's evaluation of Japanese acting seems a little incongruous to me, though, based largely on the fact that most American anime fans.... can't speak Japanese. And that's why I'm wondering if I've been using the Goal Post fallacy, since I've essentially been saying that since someone cannot prove that they can even understand what is being said, their statements are irrelevant. Although, I don't just leave it at that, I attempt to elaborate further.
For instance, I ask how are foreign audiences supposed to know how good a performance is in the language of a medium's native land if they can't even understand what is happening without the use of subtitles? And the key terms being used in voice acting are the words "voice" and "acting", so this is not extensively an anime topic, but one that pertains to all forms of acting that rely heavily on someone's voice. So this would apply to radio shows and drama CD's, both forms of entertainment that I believe are still utilized in Japan, making a claim that subtitles are what allow people to understand a performance irrelevant, since voice acting is not a form of acting that need be relegated to a medium of entertainment that is extensively visual in nature, such as anime.
That's why this notion of Japanese voice work being "better" than English voice work makes no sense to me. And it's not as though I'm attempting to portray English voice acting as the superior of the two languages, more than I am attempting to illustrate that someone's attempt to highlight Japanese voice acting as the better of the two might be a bit misinformed. Sorry for the sloppy post, I'm having trouble collecting and organizing my thoughts due to..... some issues that happened today.
Wow sounds like you've been arguing with some irritating people. XD
It could be that they think Japanese just sounds better to their ears the same some MTG players collect Japanese language cards because the kanji is more visually appealing to them than the English language versions. They can't read the kanji; they just know what the card does because the card art matches the card art on the English version they can read.
I agree, that is quite stupid. Do they not realize that the English actors are overdubbing translated dialogue to match pre-existing animation? That's a very different beast than giving an original performance. (I say this having done English dubbing on a Korean cartoon.) Not only do you have lost-in-translation issues, you often then have to edit on the fly to make the line fit the animation. It's hardly a fair comparison.
I find that a lot of the people who say those things are comparing old dubbing made years ago and haven't given any new works a chance. I cite the DNAngel dub as reference, it is one of the sloppiest made dubs I've had the displeasure of coming across. To the point that I didn't give any dubs a chance for a long time.
Probably due to the fact that anime is becoming more accepted in western society, and more mainstream, more effort and budget are now being put into dubs. Many dubs in recent years, I've found to be on par, or even better than the subbed version (subjectively speaking anyway).
Again, subjectively speaking, I will give anything with J. Michael Tatum a chance, because that guy can act. I prefer his interpretation of Kyouya from Ouran High School Host Club, for instance, over Matsukaze Masaya's performance (which is still excellent).
jliller I like putting German cards in my Savra deck. Schlächter von Malakir and Todespakt are pretty metal.
I am realizing that this video is a socially acceptable way of breeding better humans. The vast majority of what Mike says to us is, in my opinion, infuriatingly neutral. Like Dumbledore? So he shares very powerful stuff with us from a faultless point of view with seemingly flawless syntax and grammar, making it really easy to agree with anything he says, which always seems genuinely good natured. The perfection just makes my brain itch.
u wot m8
My school-attending younger self would be very confused at how willing I am to do 12 hours of homework so that I can enjoy a 15 minute video.
I've been wondering about a thing. I know you have a lot of anti-feminist responses and that must be really boring, so I'm sorry for that. I can't say I define myself as a feminist, in part because of personal reasons, but also because there's a lot about feminist ideology that I do not know much about. So I'm not anti as much as... unsure, I guess. Just wanted to clear that up.
Anyway, there's an argument I hear a lot when debating with my feminist friends, and that is that I, as a man, cannot possibly understand what a woman goes through, and as such cannot add anything substantial to the discussion. But is this not fallacious? I don't really know. If it isn't I guess I'll just have to accept that, but it's a bit sad because I really do want to help women, but it's so hard when people just assume you won't understand..
i do believe that line to be a fallacy, many human beings are capable of empathy and if given the chance to listen will be able to empathize with what is happening. it has often been used by many people and i believe this line should be considered a fallacy.
Their premise is correct, but their conclusion faulty. You're contributions aren't as meaningful as those of a woman's because you do not directly experience life as a woman ( just as a woman's contribution to a discussion of men's lives would be less meaningful).
And you should know that feminism is simply the belief that all people are equal- that things such as sex, race, or physical ability do not make on person less than another. Don't be confused by female supremacists that call themselves feminist. If you believe in equality, you are necessarily a feminist.
*****
"Understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself *or can put yourself in their shoes*."
You don't have to experience the exact same circumstances to have empathy. You just need to have had similar experiences or emotions, and be able to imagine what it's like to be someone else. While I can certainly see a plausible argument that the experience of being a woman is just too foreign to properly explain to a man or for men to compare to their own experience, I don't think it's just obviously impossible. Don't underestimate the power of art to produce empathy. It may be difficult, and the understanding may never be perfect, but I think we can get close enough to have practical significance. So the argument isn't a fallacy, but I do disagree with it.
Ayame Tomoe "And you should know that feminism is simply the belief that all people are equal- that things such as sex, race, or physical ability do not make on person less than another. Don't be confused by female supremacists that call themselves feminist. If you believe in equality, you are necessarily a feminist."
Egalitarian or humanist would be a better description.
Feminism is defined as "Social movement that seeks equal rights for women."
While this could be construed into "equal rights for everyone," feminism is about fighting against injustices against women and to achieve equality for them, in order to make them equal to men.
The entire concept is based upon achieving rights for women. Which makes sense, as women have historically been subjected to more inequalities and injustices than men.
However, if one is seeking equal rights for all, then they would be an egalitarian.
Egalitarianism is define as, "a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs" and "a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people."
***** how you define things or that website are not universal constants, i have always used empathy to state feeling what the other is feeling and sympathy to giving them emotional support. as for why you bother... why do you bother semantics are pointless to discuss, you should only comment on the presentation of the idea if you can't follow!
I work in construction.
Yeah, that's all.
Happy New Year, Mike and IDC team! I'm really looking forward to seeing/ hearing what you have to say about Serial!
I'm taking an English composition class and we're learning of a few fallacies. This channel made my interest in the readings and essays increase by, like, a lot. Also please do more fallacy videos.
Funny how so many of the comments, especially the negative ones, concern your use of certain topics as examples - not whether the video accurately demonstrates and explains certain fallacious arguments; almost as if they think that if you single out an example on the topic with which they agree, you are saying everyone who holds that view necessarily makes similar fallacious arguments. Gotta be pretty defensive to get steamed over someone using a straw-man that holds similar beliefs as you as an example...
Got super excited to eat cereal all week in the name of research, but Serial is cool too. Maybe I'll do both...
More Fallacies!
please and thank you.
THAT IS THE BEST DESCRIPTION OF COLDPLAY EVER I LOVE YOU!
I appreciate the heads up about Serial. I started listening, but now will pick up the pace so I am prepared for the upcoming episode.
Glad we got more of this.
If the merchandise doesn't include a straw Mike plushie I will stage a tiny and very well mannered riot
Teehee, that Feed Dump GIF at 0:54
1:25 The first fallacy anyone should learn about. YES!
man you put my english understanding to a test, but this is perfect, it's always useful to perfect one's language.
I've never heard of the Texas Sharpshooter before, but I've seen it a lot, especially in cases like that provided. It's nice to know there's a phrase for it instead of trying to explicitly define it every time.
texan sharpshooter fallacy..mhm..now I know what to call extremist femenist arguments:P
ikr? as soon as I heard it, I thought "pay gap"
Haha, "pay gap" was also precisely what I thought, fucking great:D
You two want to get a room for your circle jerk or are you just going to do it out here where we can all point and laugh?
vlogerhood
you're too late for the party, we already went into the room, did our business and came out happy
I applaud your use of the word extremist.
These are brilliant!
This is amazing. Thank you.
I had to pause the video right at the first fallacy to say... ooooh burrrrnnn. Poor Coldplay. :D
I also LOVE the Calvinball blason. Can't believe I'd never seen that before.
Thank you for these pointers! Although I must say that I would be far more casual over the fallacies with a friend versus a stranger. And that makes me wonder whether my kind of mindset is why the internet is so vicious sometimes, and friendships are often blind to their criticisms.
Your recommendation about Serial and the Good Wife gave me a thought - as long as you're doing office hours, why not assign homework? Maybe recommended reading/watching/listening/playing for the next episode?
I am about to rock my college course on fallacies. I’ll use multiple fallacies to prove that fallacies can only exist through fallacies and a argument can only be concluded through fallacies.
OT: The football player at 6:59 is playing for VfB Stuttgart (German club). It's a pretty good summary for the current season...
I love these videos. I hope they make more!
My aunt is an Bible Head (in the bad way) And with this video I noticed that her (and her "congregation") uses A LOT of texas sharpshooter, moving the goal and individual authority fallacies all the time.
Moving the goalposts is one fallacy I'm probably guilty of myself. It's pretty tempting, because I often word my arguments poorly and when people give good counterarguments to what I've actually said, I'm forced to respond, "yeah, good point, but what I REALLY meant was..."
love this series
i cant believe i missed the one time you were the Copenhagen D:
I would totaly love if i could tell you face to face how great your work is
man, I was so excited to hear what you had to say on the boring topic of breakfast cereal
For the Fallacy fallacy, see also: declaring something to be a social construct isn't the end of an argument.
the "jaiffes" are totally on point in this episode.
I like that I can prepare for future episodes. Thnx
I'm so tired of fallacies and arguments right now...if i see one I'm just going to say bye lol not getting into one for some time...great video!! :)
Watch out Mike. There was definitely a sniper with you in his sights after that 7:30 cut to "We are back!".
My school soccer team once faced an opponent who literally moved the goal posts. After one of our players scored a penalty kick from mid field the convinced the referee (who was a teacher at their school) that the field was too small so they moved their goal back 50ft!
You were in Copenhagen and I didn't run into you? Curses!
Seriously. I hope you had a great time in my hometown. I would just have been super stoked to meet you in real life. (Then again, I probably would've just assumed it was a super convincing look-a-like.)
Welcome back and I am looking forward to a 2015 full of great ideas. :)
I like the shot taken from LoadingReadyRun's Feed Dump
I'm strangely enthusiastic for you giving us homework for the next episode :D
Season 1 of Serial is approximately 8 1/2 hours long. And it is awesome...
Anita Sarkeesian uses the Texas Sharpshooter like there's no tomorrow.
The arguments for the gender wag gap are key examples of the texas sharp shooter & goal post moving.
1)State a statistic about how much women make, blame the outcome on employer discrimination,whilst leaving out information that discredits it.
2)When met with sound reasons discrediting the wag gap,move the goal post & say that it's about "equality" & even if the gap isn't due to "employer discrimination" but mostly women's choice.Blame that choice on discrimination by warping the defininition making a choice become "discrimination."
May I just say I love this idea of a heads up to consume material as preparation for a later discussion? It feels like Idea Channel homework! =)
I would very interested in seeing a video about the post hoc fallacy. There are so many entertaining examples you could use for assuming causation from correlation.
You guys may want to consider making the individual fallacy videos unlisted or private, that way they dont clutter up a feed, but they can still be viewed via the links in the description. Im sure most people dont watch this video as well as those 3 anyway, and the purpose of the individual videos is to send them to others, which could still be done since they are linked in the description. Just a thought.
The Moving goal posts argument could have be won by straw Mike if he had used other arguments and facts, just saying
Well, the point wasn't necessarily to show which side is right or wrong in specific arguments but to show fallacious ways of making these arguments. As the fallacy fallacy says: your conclusion may be correct even if your reasoning isn't.
viljamtheninja
True, but I think the video could have make a stronger point if they had chosen another discussion subject
So you're saying that using a fallacy makes his argument weaker? Keen observation.
*****
I think the fact that he could have won makes the argument stronger. If he was going to argue the absurd from the get go no one would bother really listening so they wouldn't catch how the fallacy affected his argument.
003dylan Just because someone argues better doesn't mean their point is right.
You should do a episode about cereal, and about how two seemingly unrelated things sometimes make something better.
Oh shit... I'm a Texan sharp shooter... Whoopsie.
Hey Mike! How was Copenhagen? I'm actually heading there myself for a semester abroad! Just wanted to say that your videos are great and as a philosophy major I've enjoyed how you bring philosophers into a majority of your videos. Thanks and hope it is a great year!
thank you
the texas sharpshooter and goalpost shifting fallacies seem to be commonplace in debates, at least in my experience.
Woah! Detroit Rock City clip. My life is complete!
I don't want to argue better on the internet, I want to not argue at all.
super psyched for an episode about serial just gotta say
2:58 almost brought me to tears, why in tf would you do something like that
THERE'S GOING TO BE A SERIAL EPISODE. GOD HAS BEEN GOOD TO ME.
Love, love, love this show! My morning youtube is so much more shallow waiting for new episodes. I love "gameshow", "school of life", "it exists", vlog bros too... does anyone have more youtube channel recommendations for the cultural or philosophical stuff? thanks in advanced!
Just listened to all of serial:)
I would definitely like to see more of these
Fantastic, a new fallacy video to enjoy and apply for the new year. I'll consider this a slightly late Christmas present from Idea Channel to arm people with more knowledge on fallacies and the entertaining video. I haven't actually heard of these fallacies' names before, although they do share relations with other misapplied logic. Anyway, keep up both the normal videos and some of these different videos compared to the normal format, as they serve well in educating and entertaining.
I knew I should never have gone to Eastern Europe!!! Mike goes to my favourite city in the world and I miss him insert *sad_face.gif*.
Happy New Year Ideas Team! Also thank you for saying whats coming up in upcoming episodes, I would really like that to continue, its like getting really cool homework.
Assigned "readings" for your next video? I like this. Will start consuming Cereal tonight.
I look forward to suddenly seeing people accusing others of these fallacies (often in error) like they did after the last video.
Straw Mike is Canadian?
Holy crap a Kate Stark .gif? LRR fans amongst the Idea Channel crew??